Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (USE SPOILER TAGS!)

[camper]

Originally Posted by R3P0

Or it could be the kick in the ass the series needed. The Prequels were not as horrid as people made them out to be they did have there moments of wow holy crap.

I enjoyed the Prequels very much, they certainly had their "Wow" moments along with their "oh, geez" ones. It wouldn't take much to 'tweak' the story and dialogue to make them significantly better, but the worst of it was the HORRIBLE chemistry between Portman and Christenson.

My primary objection in all of it is the constant editing of the original series with each release (and I do like some of the editing) in order to force it to match the prequels. The PREQUELS should have matched the original, not vice versa.

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

I'm not sure how a tv show that predicted many future technological advancements can be classed as dated.

The show and it's spin offs could go incredibly deep at times, touching up on many subjects such as racism, sexism etc.

It is dated, regardless of any credits to innovation it deserves. Just like Seinfeld is dated, Citizen Kane is dated, All in the Family, Birth of a Nation or countless others are innovative. But that doesn't mean it still holds up or can even be recognized as innovative anymore.

I'm not mocking Star Trek or dismissing it as something people still enjoy, but it is the nostalgia and not its quality that keeps people interested. I'm a fan of Seinfeld, for example, but while some of the humor still works there is a lot of what made it REALLY work is lost to time--like the early episodes of the Simpsons, you watch them today and they're snooze fests but unless you were watching them as they came out you truly miss out on how good they were at the time. Like all the others mentioned, so much they did that was never done before is so taken for granted today that THEY come off as boring.

Abrams resurrected new life in Star Trek, the die-hards hate him for it because they changed what they grew up with in a way they didn't want, but the causal fans were generally impressed.

[R3P0]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

Never mistake a great film with an extremely mediocre one haha!

Except the issues with Final Frontier were not Shatners fault, the studio and the writers strike totally messed with his vision for the film.

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by R3P0

Except the issues with Final Frontier were not Shatners fault, the studio and the writers strike totally messed with his vision for the film.

That movie was nothing but a huge ego trip! "Captain Kirk defeats God." Plus the special effects in that movie are actually worse than the effects in the earlier films.

[stvn1974]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

That movie was nothing but a huge ego trip! "Captain Kirk defeats God." Plus the special effects in that movie are actually worse than the effects in the earlier films.

Except Captain Kirk didn't defeat "God". Also the special effects are still better than the horrible CGI that was added to Mos Isley in the first Star Wars and that crappy looking Jabba.

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by camper

I enjoyed the Prequels very much, they certainly had their "Wow" moments along with their "oh, geez" ones. It wouldn't take much to 'tweak' the story and dialogue to make them significantly better, but the worst of it was the HORRIBLE chemistry between Portman and Christenson.

My primary objection in all of it is the constant editing of the original series with each release (and I do like some of the editing) in order to force it to match the prequels. The PREQUELS should have matched the original, not vice versa.



It is dated, regardless of any credits to innovation it deserves. Just like Seinfeld is dated, Citizen Kane is dated, All in the Family, Birth of a Nation or countless others are innovative. But that doesn't mean it still holds up or can even be recognized as innovative anymore.

I'm not mocking Star Trek or dismissing it as something people still enjoy, but it is the nostalgia and not its quality that keeps people interested. I'm a fan of Seinfeld, for example, but while some of the humor still works there is a lot of what made it REALLY work is lost to time--like the early episodes of the Simpsons, you watch them today and they're snooze fests but unless you were watching them as they came out you truly miss out on how good they were at the time. Like all the others mentioned, so much they did that was never done before is so taken for granted today that THEY come off as boring.

Abrams resurrected new life in Star Trek, the die-hards hate him for it because they changed what they grew up with in a way they didn't want, but the causal fans were generally impressed.

Personally I think that Star Trek still holds up really well for the most part but I do acknowledge those moments of absurdity that appear from time to time.

Regarding the J.J. Abrams' movies, I enjoy them for what they are but it's weird seeing other actors playing those parts when the original actors more or less developed and defined them for the most part.

I'm sorry to say but Chris Pine & Zachary Quinto are no William Shatner & Leonard Nimoy.

Also the movies feel more "Star Wars" like and seem to have more brawn than brain.

Those deep scientific questions etc from the original continuity have been replaced with explosions and lens flares.

[mrr1]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

That movie was nothing but a huge ego trip! "Captain Kirk defeats God." Plus the special effects in that movie are actually worse than the effects in the earlier films.

Everything about that movie is terrible. What a stinker.

[Bluyoda]

Originally Posted by spanky87

I will be fine if the the screen credit goes 'Story by George Lucas' and 'Screenplay by JJ Abrams & Lawrence Kasdan' which I think it will.

Yeah, I guess you are right. The treatments are his after all.

I think the original SW fans/Lucas haters will be a lot happier with the new film, as it is made by a hardcore SW fan of the first hour, unless by Lucas himself, who had moved on, and wanted to do them they way he had wanted to do them originally, not only getting 35% of his vision on the screen.
J.J. could make everyone happy.

[Show spoiler]Yeah, right! Like SW fans could ever be happy.

[aiman04]

http://www.starwarsunderworld.com/20...e-vii.html?m=1

[R3P0]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

That movie was nothing but a huge ego trip! "Captain Kirk defeats God." Plus the special effects in that movie are actually worse than the effects in the earlier films.

Yeah theres an entire interview with how the studio wouldnt pay for ILM so they went with some BS special effects company that overcharged paramount and everything. God was actually not even supposed to be in the film it really was a total cluster, someone came in rewrote the script and completely bastardized it.

[camper]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

[/B]
I'm sorry to say but Chris Pine & Zachary Quinto are no William Shatner & Leonard Nimoy.

Also the movies feel more "Star Wars" like and seem to have more brawn than brain.

Those deep scientific questions etc from the original continuity have been replaced with explosions and lens flares.

I don't have an issue with the acting skills of Pine or Quinto at all, and when Quinto isn't being "Angst Ridden Spock Who Needs Anger Management" I think he plays the roll well. And I prefer Pine over Shatner, because Kirk is much more toned down and not so melodramatic.

But I do agree, the movies are less 'smart' and more 'action packed' than the TV show was. And really...think about it. The original movies were more "action packed" than the TV show and not as smart as the show. He's rebooting the movie franchise, not the TV show. Nodding to the show in acknowledgement, but not rebooting that. Enough for people 'roughly' familiar with it to get some of the references, but not enough (or in the right measure) to keep the most critical of the Trekkies and Trekkers happy.

[Kirk Out]

Originally Posted by camper

I don't have an issue with the acting skills of Pine or Quinto at all, and when Quinto isn't being "Angst Ridden Spock Who Needs Anger Management" I think he plays the roll well. And I prefer Pine over Shatner, because Kirk is much more toned down and not so melodramatic.

But I do agree, the movies are less 'smart' and more 'action packed' than the TV show was. And really...think about it. The original movies were more "action packed" than the TV show and not as smart as the show. He's rebooting the movie franchise, not the TV show. Nodding to the show in acknowledgement, but not rebooting that. Enough for people 'roughly' familiar with it to get some of the references, but not enough (or in the right measure) to keep the most critical of the Trekkies and Trekkers happy.

agreed.

[Walts Ghost]

Hamill has confirmed that the beard is in fact for Episode VII.

[camper]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

Hamill has confirmed that the beard is in fact for Episode VII.

I'm glad, while I want to see Hamill show us a Luke at the top of his game regarding his power, I also am happy to see him move into the Obi-Wan role.

[Riddler The Slag]

This brings me more joy than you can imagine.

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by Riddler The Slag

[Show spoiler]

This brings me more joy than you can imagine.

Posted two pages back.

[Astro Zombie]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

Posted two pages back.

It should be on every page

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by camper

I enjoyed the Prequels very much, they certainly had their "Wow" moments along with their "oh, geez" ones. It wouldn't take much to 'tweak' the story and dialogue to make them significantly better, but the worst of it was the HORRIBLE chemistry between Portman and Christenson.

My primary objection in all of it is the constant editing of the original series with each release (and I do like some of the editing) in order to force it to match the prequels. The PREQUELS should have matched the original, not vice versa.



It is dated, regardless of any credits to innovation it deserves. Just like Seinfeld is dated, Citizen Kane is dated, All in the Family, Birth of a Nation or countless others are innovative. But that doesn't mean it still holds up or can even be recognized as innovative anymore.

I'm not mocking Star Trek or dismissing it as something people still enjoy, but it is the nostalgia and not its quality that keeps people interested. I'm a fan of Seinfeld, for example, but while some of the humor still works there is a lot of what made it REALLY work is lost to time--like the early episodes of the Simpsons, you watch them today and they're snooze fests but unless you were watching them as they came out you truly miss out on how good they were at the time. Like all the others mentioned, so much they did that was never done before is so taken for granted today that THEY come off as boring.

Abrams resurrected new life in Star Trek, the die-hards hate him for it because they changed what they grew up with in a way they didn't want, but the causal fans were generally impressed.

I'm a die hard Trek fan I love Abrams work, particularly with the casting.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

I'm not sure how a tv show that predicted many future technological advancements can be classed as dated.

The show and it's spin offs could go incredibly deep at times, touching up on many subjects such as racism, sexism etc.

Really, I have yet to see a LGBT Captain of the Enterprise.

[Riddler The Slag]

Originally Posted by Astro Zombie

It should be on every page

Quoted for truth!

[Kirk Out]

Originally Posted by camper

I'm glad, while I want to see Hamill show us a Luke at the top of his game regarding his power, I also am happy to see him move into the Obi-Wan role.

agreed i want to see how powerful luke is